ZR v TP
[2023] EWHC 3407 (Fam)
V (Appeal: Relocation), Re
15 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2600 (Fam)
High Court
A mum wanted to move with her child for a job. The dad didn't agree and appealed. The judge said the mum could move, and the higher court agreed. The higher court checked the judge did a fair and sensible job, and didn't make any big mistakes. The higher court agreed with the judge's decision, making it clear that the child's best interests are always most important.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against a relocation order made by Recorder Southern on 22 April 2024.
- •Case concerns a child not yet in full-time school, with parents currently in the South of England.
- •Parents separated in mid-2022, divorce and financial proceedings ongoing.
- •Prior order (18 August 2023) established a joint lives-with order, with the child spending 8/14 days with the mother.
- •Mother applied for relocation to a city in the North of England for a part-time position.
- •Recorder Southern permitted relocation and varied the child arrangement order.
- •Father appealed, seeking a stay and arguing procedural irregularities and errors in the judge's evaluation.
- •The appeal court granted permission to appeal, focusing on the judge's failure to consider a third option (mother commuting).
Legal Principles
Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in relocation cases.
Re C (Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305
Appellate courts should be reluctant to interfere with findings of fact unless the trial judge was plainly wrong.
Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; Volpi and another v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
A fair hearing is a fundamental right (Article 6 ECHR).
P (A Child: Fair Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 215; Re C (Children: Covid 19: Representation) [2020] EWCA Civ 754
Relocation cases require a holistic evaluation of the child's best interests, considering all realistic options and the proportionality of any interference with parental rights.
Re C (Relocation) [2015] EWCA Civ 1305; Payne v Payne [2001] EWCA Civ 166
Appeals are by way of review, not rehearing, and appellate courts should not substitute their discretion for that of the trial judge.
Re H-W [2022] UKSC 17; Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that while the trial judge's interruptions were not ideal, they did not objectively render the trial unfair. The judge's use of the term 'binary' was unfortunate but did not indicate a closed mind. The judge's decision was a finely balanced one, made holistically and within the bounds of her discretion. The court did not find that the trial judge made errors of fact.
No order for costs.
Neither party acted unreasonably or reprehensibly.